Body Language Myths

The first myth claims that because we know so much about body language now, it is easy to spot a liar. The second myth, and it is exactly that, a myth, is that eye aversion is indicative of deception.

Beginning in the 1970's so called body language experts began to prattle that body language was the key to determining if someone was lying. Both law enforcement officers and the general public bought into this, and even today, with shows such as Fox Television's "Lie to Me" the myth continues.

In 1985, Paul Ekman and other researchers looked at this myth and found that most of us are no better than chance (50/50) at detecting deception, and very few of us rise above chance. What are often mistaken for signs of deception (nose touching, mouth covering, eye closing, high pitched voice, et. al.) are really pacifiers that help us to relieve stress. These pacifying behaviors are employed both by the guilty and innocent to relieve the stress of an interview. Ekman's work has been replicated many times over and it remains axiomatic, we humans are not very good at detecting deception, even experienced FBI agents such as myself.

The danger of this myth for society arises when poorly trained law enforcement officers perceive pacifying behavior or behaviors of discomfort, as I describe in "What Every Body is Saying," as lying. This often leads to more assertions that the interviewee is lying or more aggressive techniques which will surely increase pacifying behaviors and thus a vicious cycle ensues.

We now have enough DNA exonerations to show us that people under police questioning will confess and sign confessions to end the stress of the interview process, even when they did not commit the crime. In a majority of DNA exonerations, police officers relentlessly kept after the interviewee for hours at a time, contributing to stress and limbic arousal, which were perceived erroneously by those same officers as nonverbals associated with lying. The case of the Central Park Jogger is an example of what happens when police officers mistake nonverbals for signs of deception and relentlessly pursue a confession rather than the truth. In this case 5 young boys served up to 13 years. They were later released when it was determined conclusively someone else had committed the crime (corroborated by DNA and a verifiable confession).

There is a second concern associate with this and that is that juries believing the common myths about lying and deception, often associate (neck touching, hand wringing, facial touching) with deception. I have heard jurors, post trial, mention seeing various pacifying behaviors and equating them with lying. It has always made me wonder how many people in history have gone to prison, or worse were executed, because their bodies were simply transmitting, "I am nervous, I am stressed," but the jury or judge perceive it as deception.

The second nonverbal myth that still permeates has to do with eye avoidance. During conversations or during interviews, eye avoidance is erroneously associated by the general public with deception. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Noted researcher Aldert Vrij found and others have also verified; people who habitually lie, this includes your borderlines, histrionics, anti-socials, Machiavellian personalities, and your psychopaths, actually engage in greater eye contact. Why? Because they know that we look for this behavior and they want to make sure that you are buying their lie. A truthful person can wonder off with their eyes because there is no need to convince, only to convey.

Eye aversion is both personal and cultural. For instance, you may derive great personal comfort in recalling facts or an emotional experience by looking away from someone and focusing on something distant or looking down. The cultural aspect has to do with what we are often taught. For instance, in Latin America and among African Americans, it is instilled in children that when they are being castigated or dressed down by an authority figure they are to avoid looking at the higher authority in the eyes. This is how you show that you are contrite and humble.

This myth about eye avoidance persists and again has social as well legal implications. In social settings it is perceived as someone who is easily distracted or who has a lack of interest. In a legal setting I have seen police officers say to young African Americans, "look at me," when the young men were being contrite and humble. This lack of understanding and ignorance can have mild social effects but it can also escalate into uglier permutations where individuals are shunned or accused of something merely because they were exercising eye aversion.

______________

For additional information please see the bibliography below or write to me through www.jnforensics.com for a more comprehensive bibliography on body language and nonverbal communications. Additional Psychology Today posts on the subject are located under Spycatcher or you can follow me on Twitter: @navarrotells. Joe Navarro is a former FBI agent, author, and lecturer.

Bibliography

Navarro, Joe. 2010. Louder Than Words. New York: Harper Collins.

Navarro, Joe. 2008. What Every Body Is Saying. New York: Harper Collins.

Great article btw. Ive got a question on something slightly different though. Im a 17 year old junior, who is planning on becoming a psychiatrist. In doing so, i sometimes come up with theories to explain things. Recently, i learned of the different ways a mental disorder can be categorized(Social Standards, Maladaptive Behavior, Emotional Distress, Knowledge of Consequences). My theory is this. If a child is kept away from people, and the chance to develop socially, is it possible for them to develop certain traits and characteristics which they find acceptable(such as not talking or dressing a certain way), and than when they are introduced into a social situation, these traits become maladaptive, being that they obsruct the chance to develop social connections, because at the time, these traits were what the child found solace and comfort in, possibly even protection. If i could get some feedback on whether my theory is possible or just deduction, i would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Great question you ask. As I started to think about it and answer I was going to make it really complicated so I took a step back. I think the answer was staring at me very clearly from my own background. Bear with me, my family came from Cuba. In Cuba, no offense, we talk very loud and we are very animated. Whne I came to America I found that I did not fit in. I could not understand why everyone talked so quietly (like hey dont you people get excited about anything) and my teachers and mates found me very loud. As with your example, I took great comfort in expressing myself quite loudly. Here, not so much. To many my behavior was just too much, too loud, too much gesticulating. Maladaptive would you say is the term of art?

I once attended an APA meeting and a lady from Brazil leaned over to me, cause I speak Portuguese, and she said. According to what that man is saying I am a histrionic. I told her not to worry. Loud clothing, loud colors, provocative attire, etc. has more to do with culture in her her case, and what was comfortable and in vogue at that moment in Rio, than any possibility of her having a personality disorder.

I hope this helps, let me know. You may also want to consider asking a psychologist steeped in the field of neuropsychology or abnormal psychology.
All the best. Joe Navarro

I enjoyed reading "What Every Body Is Saying", and appreciate your emphasis on being very cautious with interpretations of nonverbal communication, especially with other cultures.

You mention that myths of body language and potentially dangerous results. What about the affect of the subtle yet powerful influence produced by negative stereotypes in general, coupled with cognitive dissonance/self-justification, when interpreting body language?

I ask this because when watching "Lie to Me; Season 1, Episode 13, Sacrifice", it was yet another example of the prominent negative stereotypes specifically of Arabs and Muslims in the media, as researched and discussed extensively by Dr. Jack Shaheen:

And when stereotypes are coupled with the psychological phenomena of cognitive dissonance and self-justification, as discussed by Dr. Carol Tavris, and Dr. Elliott Aronson in their excellent book:

http://www.mistakesweremadebutnotbyme.com/index.html

The results have real world consequences of wrongful convictions (or interrogations):

http://www.mistakesweremadebutnotbyme.com/html/criminal_justice.html

Are law enforcement (of every level) trained in being aware of the affect of negative stereotypes; differences in cross-cultural communication styles; cognitive dissonance/self-justification, alomg with their training to properly interpret nonverbal communication/body language?

Anyone interested in this subject should check out something called Project Implicit (see site below). They offer an online test, Implicit Association Test, which measures unconscious biases. Actually, they have more than one test for various stereotypes, e.g. 'black/white' bias, male/female bias, etc. I believe this project is part of an ongoing study and so far they have made several interesting findings (you'll see more info on their site). The one that gives me greatest hope is that once people become aware of their unconscious biases, they are able to change it, i.e. we are not 'slave' to our unconscious. To paraphrase Francis Bacon, knowledge is power!
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/

Great comments and thank you for sharing the links. I am sure others appreciate that also. I was very fortunate in that early on in the FBI we looked at the effects of negative stereotypes and began to train against it. Having said that I am also aware of the impact society has on us as individuals and collectively which begins to lay a foundation for negative stereotypes in our youth.

I am reminded of the Time magazine cover of OJ Simpson which was deliberately darkened. Now, I am sure the person responsible was not being overtly prejudiced, but it certainly skewed our perception of OJ just from that cover shot and I have to wonder, what if he had lightened it. Something was speaking to that photo editor to do that, and that is the problem, sometimes we don’t know what our subconscious is promiscuously doing.

I think that the best we can do is train to recognize it and always make sure we have neutral parties who can help us to disengage when our decision making is based on negative stereotypes. The earlier we train young people to recognize just how subtle and insidious negative stereotypes can be, the earlier we can develop quality officers.

The problem for this country is one that most people don’t think about. In America we have 17,500 plus independent and different police departments and each trains differently. They don’t all have the same budget, they don’t all recruit the best people. They try, but when you have that much variety you are going to have different skill sets and even different attitudes. That alone hurts us. We are the only country that does this. If you go to Germany there is one police department and they all get trained the same, not here, and that doesn’t bode well when we look at skills, training, personnel, and resources.

If you meet an FBI agent in Juno he will have received the same training as one in Key West. You can’t say that about our police forces. I have been to police departments that require only a high school education and some that get all of 8 hours training per year. Until we fix the training problem this is going to continue unfortunately.

Thank you again for bringing up this information which is important. Negative stereotypes and poor interviewing has contributed to false accusations and false imprisonment which is unconscionable. Coupled with faulty memories, it is a real travesty if not corrected.

Hy mister Navarro. My name is Corina and I'm a big fan. I'm froma Romania and I wanna say thay you are an exceptional human been. I'm totaly agree with your article and I waitt you to Bucharest again. Thanks!